My own position is rationalist, I do believe that the proper use of reason is essential for understanding the world. Intuition cannot be separated from reason because it will only lead one to the truth if once mind is first "calibrated" by previous scientific research/rational ordering one has to learn to think rationally, which then makes once thought patterns (both conscious and unconscious) directed towards discovering what one seeks in science. Logic is an essential part of mathematics and science in general and most scientists do look at the world in a clear-headed and disenchanted way.
I personally dislike romanticism, especially of this fascist/Nietzschian kind, but I don't know any natural scientists and so I see it as a possibility that I am wrong and that Pbfgvaf (translate using rot13.com) is right, hence my questions here. I do consider just about all of his ideas abhorrent. They are probably the complete opposite to mine, which is a reason why they drew my attention.
Also he seems to attack abstract ideas in favor of "direct observation", but I have a hard time seing how one can free oneself from abstract reasoning.
I am introducing this position because its an attack on rationalism hence me asking Rationalists what they thought about it. It seems you Rationalists are unimpressed.
Michael Anton did occupy a serious position in the Trump administration and was called a serious intellectual even by some center left sources.
I agree it's a terrible ideology. Still due to my ignorance in such matters and Pbfgvaf (translate using rot13.com) (who is the Bronze age Pervert in real life) scientific background (BA in math and PhD from Yale in Political science as well as a father who works at MIT) as well as Michael Antons claim that the book was "more often right than wrong in its statements" (including taking Pbfgvaf (translate using rot13.com) attacks on the theory of Evolution seriously) made me think that maybe what seems like irrational drivel might have some truth to it and it's me who is ignorant? Also what about the mathematical philosophy called " Intuitionism"?
The flirt with rationalism some of the right had a few years ago with NrX seems to be mostly over and now is the age of the likes of Pbfgvaf (translate using rot13.com).
Thank you all for the enlightening answers! I would also like to ask how much correct flashes of intuition are themselves a product of making once mind think acording to rational rules. Dont discoveries usualy come from long research where initial flashes of intuition are often wrong and the scientist slowly reaches the truth step by step trough reasoning, experimenting and many intuitive flashes? Intuition is not arriving from some mysterious other place but is tied to their previous scientific research/rational ordering. Also can one really reduce reason to sylogisms or trial and error?
Pbfgva Iynq Nynznevh (translate using rot13.com) who has a BA in Mathematics writes the following:
Do you imagine that men of genius or, let’s say, men of science in history walked around clear-headed, “disenchanted,” reasonable, with the tight-assed attitude of the science cultist and materialist? No great discovery has ever been made by the power of reason. Reason is a means of communicating, imperfectly, some discoveries to others, and in the case of the sciences, a method of trying to render this communication certain and precise. But no one ever made a discovery through syllogisms, through reason, through this makeshift form of transmission. Great mathematicians saw spatial relations, as great physicists saw and... (read 246 more words →)
If we speak only about logic. How useful is logic in modern science? Not just in explaining findings to other people but also in the actual discovery?